It depends on your elevation compared to the top of the tall building (OK,
so I'm a smart ass, but it's true).
>From ground level, without shifting, if you cannot see the top of the
building, but only ground between you and the building and its base, then
you shift _up_ to lower the horizon and get more of the upper part of the
building; hopefully the top too.
The reason Oly also makes the 24/3.5 shift: tall highrise buildings in
urban settings can be too tall and require you to be too close for an
unobstructed view for the angle of view the 35/2.8 provides even at max shift.
Note that shifting _does_not_change_perspective_ but maintains proportions
of the perspective. For a head-on photo of a building with a flat face
(basically two dimensionsional), this does not matter much. It will look
as if you had raised the camera. For three dimensional objects, such as
huge statues, this does make a difference.
Example:
Suppose you are trying to photograph the Statue of Liberty in New York
Harbor. In photographing it from ground level on the island your basic
perspective of the head will be from below it. Even with a shift lens
shifted up, you would still be looking at the head from below it. If the
lens axis is maintained perpendicular to the statue, you _will_ maintain
proportions though. In other words the head will _not_ appear
proportionally narrower than the waist or feet which is what would happen
if you tilted the camera body upward. You will still see more of her chin
than her forehead and crown though. To fix that you would need to rent a
helicopter.
-- John
At 05:47 5/2/00 , Acer wrote:
>So to get the top of a tall building, I'd shift the lens /down/? Isn't an
>SLR supposed to correct right-side up and left-right?
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|